Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kingdee MCP Server

Kingdee MCP Server

by WaHaiLong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

kingdee_submit_bills

Submits Kingdee bills from draft to pending review using form ID and bill IDs. Returns success indicator and next action suggestion to complete audit.

Instructions

提交单据（草稿 → 待审核）。

返回结构化结果：success=true 时包含 next_action 字段，建议调用 kingdee_audit_bills 完成审核。

Returns: str: JSON，含 success / next_action / bill_ids 字段

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "kingdee_submit_bills"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive. The description adds context by specifying the status change (draft → pending review) and that the response includes a next_action field, providing useful behavioral cues beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main action, but the return type is described in a code-like format which could be cleaner. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the basic action and output format, but it omits potential failure modes (e.g., invalid IDs, already submitted bills) and required permissions. For a simple submit tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool description does not mention any parameters; they are only described in the schema (in Chinese). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaning beyond what's in the schema, leaving the agent to rely solely on schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool submits bills, transitioning them from draft to pending review. It distinguishes itself from siblings like kingdee_audit_bills by specifying the submission step and suggesting a follow-up action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by suggesting calling kingdee_audit_bills after successful submission, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., kingdee_create_and_audit) or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools